Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Slashdot regular Bennett Haselton writes "Websense, a US-based Internet-censoring software maker, claims not to sell to foreign governments that are censoring Internet access for all of their citizens. But the OpenNet Initiative reports that national ISPs in Yemen have been using Websense to filter Internet access for at least the past four years. Will Websense revoke their license? And what would happen then?"Update: 08/10 21:01 GMT by KD: Bennett adds, "After the story ran, Websense sent me this update." "Since we were informed about the potential use of our products by Yemeni ISPs based on government-imposed Internet restrictions in Yemen, we have investigated this potential non-compliance with our anti-censorship policy. Because our product operates based on a database system, we are able to block updated database downloads to locations and to end users where the use of our product would violate law or our corporate policies. We believe that we have identified the specific product subscriptions that are being used for Web filtering by ISPs in Yemen, and in accordance with our policy against government-imposed censorship, we have taken action to discontinue the database downloads to the Yemeni ISPs."

The Internet censoring software maker
Websense
has a
published policy
on their website against allowing their
software to be used for government-mandated censorship:

Websense does not sell to governments or Internet Service Providers (ISPs)
that are engaged in any sort of government-imposed censorship. Any
government-mandated censorship projects will not be engaged by Websense.
If Websense does win a business and later discovers that the government is
requiring all of its national ISPs to engage in censorship of the Web and
Web content, we will remove our technology and capabilities from the project.

This supposedly differentiates the company from competitors such as
Smartfilter (now owned by
McAfee), which according to
OpenNet Initiative reports, is used
to censor the Internet in several African and Middle Eastern countries
including Tunisia,
Saudi Arabia,
UAE, and
Sudan.
Websense once
enthusiastically
competed for the contract to censor Internet access in Saudi Arabia,
but has now apparently ceded such markets to Smartfilter.

However, according to the ONI, the two national ISPs in the country of
Yemen are using Websense
to censor Internet access for all users. The researchers found that some sites are
blocked in Yemen that are probably not on Websense's original filtering
list, such as the Yemeni Socialist Party,
as well as sites that are blocked under standard Websense categories, such as
pornography, sex education materials, and "anonymizing and privacy tools"
(presumably, proxy sites).

Websense declined to tell me whether they have ever revoked an ISP's license to use
Websense after discovering that the ISP was using it in violation of their anti-government-censorship
policy. They also declined to say whether they had any ISP customers in Middle Eastern
countries, apart from Yemen. (For any Middle Eastern ISP using Websense, there's a high probability
that they would be doing it as a result of a government mandated filtering policy, and hence
in violation of Websense's stated rules.) But regarding
the use of Websense in Yemen, Websense did reply to say simply,
"We will look into the matter. If our software is being used in violation
of our policy, we will take appropriate action." I think that if they were serious
about preventing their software from being used for government censorship, they should have
red-flagged any purchase from a national ISP in a country with one of the
worst press-freedom ratings
in the world, but better late than never.

There are only about
200,000 Internet users in Yemen,
compared to over
six million in Saudi Arabia,
millions more in other censored Middle Eastern countries, and
300 million in Internet-censored China.
(And even the Yemenis' Internet access is not filtered all the time, since the ONI report says that
the number of concurrent licenses for Websense purchased by the Yemeni ISPs is less than the
number of Yemeni Internet users, and when the number of concurrent users exceeds the number
of licenses, all requests go through unfiltered!)
So it would be a small step towards global liberation of the Internet, but still
equivalent to de-censoring Internet access for every resident of
Boise if the city had 100% broadband
penetration, which is enough to justify putting the squeeze on Websense.

What exactly would happen if Websense did revoke their license for the Yemeni ISPs? They couldn't
force the ISPs to uninstall the software, but they could stop allowing them to download further
updates to the Websense blocked-site list. Most installations of Websense are configured to
download updates to the list every day, to block the latest adult websites as well as to try
and stay ahead of newly released proxy sites. Once the list updates stopped, all existing
blocked websites would remain blocked, but newly created adult sites and proxy sites would be
accessible, and the filtering would gradually become less and less effective. So it would be
a concrete victory for Yemeni Internet users, and not just a symbolic gesture.

How would we know if Websense went through with it, anyway, if they refuse to confirm or
deny that they have revoked the licenses for Yemen? The ONI declined to tell me how exactly
they determined that Yemeni ISPs were using Websense. (Not that I mind; they could have
obtained this information with the help of people whose jobs and freedom would be at stake
if they were found out, in which case ONI would not be able to share their confidential
sources.) Presumably the ONI could repeat their research in the future to determine if
Websense were still being used. However, even if they can see that Websense software
is still being used to censor the Internet, it may not be easy to tell whether the Yemeni
ISPs are still downloading updates to the blocked-site list. My suggestion: Create a new
proxy site and don't publicize it anywhere, but report it to Websense for blocking. Test a
few days later to verify that it's blocked by Websense, but not by Smartfilter or other
popular blocking programs. Then see if it's blocked in Yemen as well. If not, then hopefully
that means that Websense cut them off.

And then what? Maybe the Yemeni ISPs will just continue using Websense with a frozen copy
of the blocked site list, reasoning that most of the well-known adult sites that users are
going to try to visit, are probably already on that list. Maybe they'll set up a shell company
in another country, posing as an ISP requesting a legitimate copy of Websense, and buy a new
list subscription that way. But it will still
be worth it to press Websense into revoking their license, even if it only breaks
Internet censorship in Yemen for a few months or a year.
At that point, perhaps they'll just take their business to Smartfilter like
almost every other Middle Eastern country that censors the Internet.

After all, we shouldn't pick on
Websense too much, when Smartfilter is censoring national Internet access for about 100 times
that many users in total. If Websense says they don't provide software to government censors,
then we should hold them to that. But the real scandal isn't that American censorware
companies provide filters to censoring governments while
claiming not to,
it's that American companies are
doing
it at all.

Websense filters are both inaccurate and shitty. However, they sell themselves off as a very US-friendly enterprise/corporate friendly filter solution, which is the only reason they are still around. Apparently people don't know about what openDNS can do for free (and safer).

Yea but the problem is open source in the work place is usually not going to happen. Especially not when a grubby little company like Websense gets their mits on it.

We use websense here @ where I work (I'm a network administrator for a large gov't WAN and Websense is totally terrible. Granted it blocks important sites like.gov but blocks google sometimes, but still.......

However, for a country where they would rather block access to content that might maybe possibly be objectionable, shitty and inaccurate filters are OK. Having lived in Saudi Arabia, they operate under the same assumption-more censorship is rarely a bad thing. And while merely going through an outside proxy is a quick and easy fix, WS is surprisingly deft at blocking access to those as well. So unless random Yemeni person knows someone who can regularly email them lists of proxies they're pretty much SOL.

No; there's lots of you. Aren't you glad you are able to express your opinion? I hope, someday, that everybody's opinion on the matter will someday be able to be heard. Even the ones, like yours, that are worthy of contempt.

This has little to do with the inherent arguments for and against free speech, and a lot more to do with "Do as I say, not as I do." mentality that Websense took in saying that they will not provide Governments with censoring software and the updates to keep it doing its job.
To take this in another direction, here's a nice little analogy for you. It's like Home Depot saying 'We do not sell equipment to people who torture with it" and then turning around and selling a 'waterboarding kit' for $200 to the ag

So are the ISPs blocking because they have their own cultural objection to the content, or is the government requesting it? It says national ISP, so the question is how much oversight the government has, and if there are alternative ISPs.

<Flamebait>I know that nobody reads the stories, but...Would it be too much to ask for a single link that leads to the story in the portion that shows on the front page? The brief blurb has no link, but the full story has so many (and mainly pointless) links that it's impossible to find it. Unless there isn't a story and this is just random blathering.</Flamebait>

Oh, wait - it's 1/3 of the way down the voluminous post. Which has (un)surprisingly little content.

From TFA (after I found it)

"The ISP YemenNet continues to have an issue with its filtering system; ONI investigation found that the ISP uses a Blue Coat integrated cache/filter appliance to run Websense but possesses a limited number of concurrent user licenses--not nearly enough to cover all of the Internet users in the country. Thus, when the number of subscribers accessing the Internet at a given time exceeds the limited number of user licenses, the requests of all users circumvent the filtering software.

Is it possible they simply bought the Blue Coat appliances which came prepackaged with the software?

I have to agree re Editors please do your job - this is an interesting story, but christ did it need so much fluff in it? get to the point already! Just cause someone is a regular contributor doesn't mean their words are sacred!

After failing to download a database update for two weeks, the software will cease to function. Now that the subscription has been pulled, Yemen ISPs will have two weeks to find a different "solution" to their problem.

Also, many programs like ultrasurf and gtunnel work quite well, so you don't even have to search for those proxies. The problem is, your average user doesn't know that, and will not acquire the knowledge easily (websense and others like it can block most sites that link to/advertise proxies, too... you have to already have some knowledge of it).

Having operated under a rather oppressive form of websense at college for years, I have very little love for the company. But this still seems like a case of over-extending the blame. Sure, they are probably more evil than they want to pretend, but at least they bother pretending; which is more than I can say for some.

I think I'll reserve judgment until more facts are out, especially Websense's next step. If they actually do uphold their anti-censorship statement, then props to them; they'll be the least annoying filtering software in the market, which is not saying a whole lot.

In US, ISPs may not be the ones filtering Internet content, but filtered it is - by lawsuits, employers who fire for facebook pages, and vigilantes jumping at any lapse of political correctness. I am sure the parties involved this the content is as offending as Yemenes consider porn.

Considering that Yemeni's live on an average of $1.25 a day, most of them don't even have access to the Internet. And since it's a vary traditional Muslim country, many would applaud filtering out "harmful foreign content". The author is applying his own feelings and standards to a very different people and culture.

"The author is applying his own feelings and standards to a very different people and culture."

No, the author is applying his own feelings and standards to the company that make Websense.The rant has little to do with Yemeni censorship and much to do with how Websense is going against their corporate policy. Of course, they may not even be aware of the Yemeni ISP's use, since it came as part of a 3rd party appliance, but that's irrelevant.

Yeah, the Yemeni's don't need free speech. Their culture and social heritage simply don't require western concepts such as freedom. The idea that individuals should be free is really just evil western oppression, if you think really hard about it. Different races and cultures obviously have different levels of optimal liberty.

It's frightening how many people believe this -- that, just because someone is a member of some traditionalist culture that believes (for instance) women should be subservient, it's okay for their government to jail them for speaking their mind.

Restrictive traditionalist cultures *can* still exist in countries where civil liberties are (nominally) respected. The first example that comes to mind is the Amish in the US.

Because upgrading the upstream pipe from 14.4Kbps to 33.6Kbps would require the Yemenis ISP to take out a small loan at a 'very' high interest rape from the WTO...

But in reality, all ISP's would like to censor traffic as 'Less load + more consumers = Greater Profit'. If ISP's had their way we would all have the old netzero type ad bar on our screens while every mistyped web domain would take you to their sponsors web site all the while making sure you never exceed 1GB a month on your 100Mbit/100Mbit connec

Good question. For that matter, why would a company want to block internet access to its employees? In our case I believe it was just the default setting and nobody thought to check.
All I'm saying is, let's think twice before DDoS-ing Yemen's Websense servers in the name of freedom.

There. Fixed that for you. Websense doesn't *censor*, that is left up to the individual admins who purchase the product. They take great pains to make sure that the software doesn't censor by using actual real human beings to categorize their list of websites and peer review to make sure that they agree on the categories assigned. THAT IS ALL THEY DO. The purchasers decide what categories they want to turn off or on. And as the product is OEM in a number of appliances, it is quite possible they are not aware of it's use in Yemen.

Disclaimer: I appeared in a promo video for Websense when they first started out; I was a big fan of the product for use in a private school setting precisely because it *wasn't* like all the other filtering software out there and censorship was a major issue with the students there.

When Websense's sole and advertised use is blocking and logging access by bias, I don't think calling it "filtering software" instead of "censoring software" makes much of an improvement.Sure, you can call cigarettes "plant fiber cylinders" too, but that doesn't make them any healthier.

When Websense's sole and advertised use is blocking and logging access by bias, I don't think calling it "filtering software" instead of "censoring software" makes much of an improvement.
Sure, you can call cigarettes "plant fiber cylinders" too, but that doesn't make them any healthier.

not saying filters aren't stupid/evil, cause they are. bits want to be free and all that

but the word "filter" seems to fit better than censor. the internet is still there after all, no websites were confiscated. no one was jailed for publishing. there is no armed authority forcing the removal of the bits from existence

if you're behind this filter that Websense makes you can't see what others can, like if you were behind a red light filter, there would be certain frequencies you can't see anymore. i

Websense, a U.S. based Internet filtering software makerThere. Fixed that for you. Websense doesn't *censor*, that is left up to the individual admins who purchase the product.

As much as they can within the limitations of the product.

They take great pains to make sure that the software doesn't censor by using actual real human beings to categorize their list of websites and peer review to make sure that they agree on the categories assigned.

The reason for this is that many admins simply subscribe to the Websense-provided "list" of naughty sites (in various categories). My office uses Websense, and the admins subscribe to the list. Care to explain how docs.google.com got on the block list in the "Internet Telephony" category? Cause it sure as hell wasn't our admins...

I'll repeat it for those who didn't get it the first time; Websense doesn't censor anything; it merely categorizes. Admins are then free to check or uncheck entire categories or go as granular as a site level. If your admins are lazy and check everything, don't blame Websense, blame your HR department or CIO.

As far as docs.google.com being on the internet telephony category, did you or your admins contact Websense to find out why it was miscategorized or did you just stay silent? (BTW, it "sure as hell

I complained to our admins about docs.google.com, they said they were unsure how it got blocked because they'd never used the site/entered it into the system, and promptly unblocked it. Unless they're lying, the "peer reviewed" lists are a bit lame. I'll come back with more examples of bizarre blocks in the future (as I run into them). And yes, I know they pick categories (or not) as they choose; I was talking about the contents of said categories.

docs.google.com shows up currently in the category "Personal Network Storage and Backup." Seems quite accurate to me.
Requires a valid subscription to see, but https://www.websense.com/sitelookup [websense.com] does allow administrators to test categories and report categorised URLs to the human review team. It is also available in the installed product, so admins don't even have to go out of their way.

They couldn't force the ISPs to uninstall the software, but they could stop allowing them to download further updates to the Websense blocked-site list. Most installations of Websense are configured to download updates to the list every day, to block the latest adult websites as well as to try and stay ahead of newly released proxy sites. Once the list updates stopped, all existing blocked websites would remain blocked, but newly created adult sites and proxy sites would be accessible, and the filtering wou

Just a quick note on the way the WS install would handle the database download failures. There is a possibility that the downloads would stop. Short of a manual download and implementation, this could prove effective in disabling the filtering in a matter of weeks. Websense filtering stops to function as designed when the database becomes 'stale', or is older than 2 weeks. At that point, the logs continue to function, as they would normally, but the filtering halts. If Websense does indeed revoke the licens